Kind of an "I Spy" meets "Tim Burton Batman" fever dream, ending in the kind of colorful fantasia you'd see on the cover of some Utopian Scholastic PC package.
That's probably incidental, horrible as it is. Models don't need training data of everything imaginable, just enough things in combination, and there's enough imagery of children's bodies (including non-sexual nudity) and porn to generate a combination of the two, same as it can make a hybrid giraffe-shark-clown on a tricycle despite never seeing that in the training data before.
The biggest issue here is not that models can generate this imagery, but that Musk's Twitter is enabling it at scale with no guardrails, including spamming them on other people's photos.
Yep, when my kid was taking selfies with my phone and playing with Google Photos, I appreciated that Google didn't let any Gemini AI manipulation of any kind occur, even if whatever they were trying to do was harmless. Seemed very strict when it detected a child. Grok should probably do that.
People posting random cute candids of their family and pets is about the most commonplace type of social media post there is. You should be getting angry at the weird pervs sexualizing the images (and the giant AI company enabling it).
Man, I don't want to be that guy calling AI on everything, but it's odd that almost every sentence of that is some form of "not X, but Y". Is that an LLMism that persists even in other languages?
Any recommendations for writers or bloggers who write plainly/unpretentiously, but have really interesting ideas? First thought was maybe John Salvatier [1] or Adam Mastroianni [2].
I've gotten that feeling from dreams sometimes -- not forgetting the content or having it be something illogical, but instead being a very concrete and visceral situation or concept that is impossible to put into words or even into conscious understanding. But it's usually a "just woke up from deep sleep" feeling -- wild to think about experiencing that with a waking idea.
The 2011 action in Libya was an international effort carried out under a UN authorization to protect civilians, not a unilateral move by Obama based on a fabricated rationale. There were limited airstrikes and aid to rebels, but the US did not directly take out Gaddafi or make any pretense of "running the country."
Obama deliberately went to Congress for authorization to strike the Syrian chemical program in 2013, and after it quailed from taking a vote, the strikes didn't happen.
The 2014 strikes were against ISIS, not Syrian government forces, and carried out under the existing AUMF authorization to combat Al Qaeda and its affiliates. One can argue whether ISIS qualified (even the administration at the time acknowledged it was a stretch and wanted a more clear-cut resolution from Congress), but it definitely was a major terrorist threat in the region and had been working with AQ in the past.
>Now everybody else has a little extra money they didn't have to spend on web development, and they'll want to buy something with it, so you get new jobs making whatever it is they want to spend the money on instead.
Why assume a business that just boosted profits by reducing headcount would want to spend that surplus on hiring more workers elsewhere? Seems like it would mostly go towards stock buybacks and higher executive pay packages. There might be some leakage into new hiring, but I reckon the overall impact will be intensifying the funneling of money to the top and further hollowing out of the labor market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiZcy86_L74
Kind of an "I Spy" meets "Tim Burton Batman" fever dream, ending in the kind of colorful fantasia you'd see on the cover of some Utopian Scholastic PC package.